> So your argument is that it's okay that we've made it worse for the people who already had it the hardest because the rest of the more wealthy people in the country benefitted from it?
Where did I write that? I included the excerpt from the article to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty in selectively quoting a single sentence from an article that is positive about the effects of immigration. I did not make any moral judgments anywhere in my comment. Quite the contrary -- I argued that a moral judgment in this situation was not possible to make.
What legal framework have I dismissed which determines what someone deserves to earn, aside from the minimum wage?
We are debating the same thing. I'm arguing that your assertions have no basis. If you don't know what is fair, you cannot know if someone is treated fairly or not.
You have no basis for your claim that some people are paid less than they deserve to be paid, unless you know what they deserve to be paid, and can demonstrate that what they are actually paid is a lower number than what they deserve to be paid. That's not a vague argument. It is very clear. It's also not existentialist, and if you think it is, you don't know what existentialism is.
I wasn't referring to philosophical existentialism. This is the definition of existential I was using, straight from google.com:
ex·is·ten·tial
ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l/
LOGIC
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.
Sure, okay, there's no absolute standard for fairness. So there's no point in discussing the article, because by what basis would you even discuss whether or not employers should be allowed to ask applicants for their previous income? By what basis should we determine whether we should have any labor laws? What is the absolute standard by which you determined that there should be a minimum wage, or what that minimum wage should be?
If we ignore the entire framework of the conversation and my original comment, then we're veering off into a place I don't find particularly interesting.
I didn't say that fairness does not exist, or that there are not standards for fairness for some things. I said there is no standard for determining the fairness of what someone is paid. There are plenty of areas of life where fairness can be determined.
Where did I write that? I included the excerpt from the article to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty in selectively quoting a single sentence from an article that is positive about the effects of immigration. I did not make any moral judgments anywhere in my comment. Quite the contrary -- I argued that a moral judgment in this situation was not possible to make.
What legal framework have I dismissed which determines what someone deserves to earn, aside from the minimum wage?
We are debating the same thing. I'm arguing that your assertions have no basis. If you don't know what is fair, you cannot know if someone is treated fairly or not.
You have no basis for your claim that some people are paid less than they deserve to be paid, unless you know what they deserve to be paid, and can demonstrate that what they are actually paid is a lower number than what they deserve to be paid. That's not a vague argument. It is very clear. It's also not existentialist, and if you think it is, you don't know what existentialism is.